Last week we examined the text of Genesis 1 to see what it actually says about the days of Creation. We live in a time when many, perhaps even most, Christians in the United States have come to believe that the earth is very old and that evolution has played some role in the development of life on earth. The result is that they strive to manipulate and reinterpret Genesis 1 into something that will somehow be compatible with their beliefs. The conclusion of our study last week was that the text of Genesis itself demands a literal interpretation for even the length of a day is defined within the text. In addition, a comparison of the sequential order of creation with the all proposed evolutionary schemes shows that the Genesis Creation account cannot be reconciled with any form of evolution. Creation and Evolution cannot both be true. If that sounds like a radical idea to you, then please get a copy of last week’s sermon – either the notes, the audio recordings or the DVD of it. You need to clearly understand what the Bible actually says and why all the proposed reinterpretations of what God said in it are foolishness.

To express the love of god to and through manA creation for man to have dominion over.

No foreordained future

No goal except survival

Man is merely the latest stage of evolution

Since Genesis 1 and the ideas of evolution are irreconcilable, this morning I want to accomplish two things. First, I will talk about the importance of believing the Genesis account, for there are many ramifications for those that do not believe it. Second, I want to briefly demonstrate that evolution is not science nor is it based on true science and therefore its claims to be a source of truth are false. In other words, there is no valid reason to believe evolution much less strive to reinterpret Scripture to be compatible with it.

Why Genesis is Important to the Christian

There are many who claim that Genesis is not important for the Christian. They say that since salvation does not depend on it then it is not worth arguing about. There are some that go beyond this and criticize those which advocate Creation and the evidence for it as being detrimental to evangelism and divisive in the church. Those who say such things fall into two general groups. Most are just ignorant and repeat what they have heard. Some of these are then used as ignorant pawns in the hands of our adversary. Then there are the false teachers who have willfully rejected what God has said and are leading people astray to a false believe in a false god. Let me explain.

It is true that belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is not necessary in order to be saved from sin through faith in Jesus Christ. There are many professing Christians who are in that very position. That was even true in my own life until I was in my early twenties. Though I grew up in a Bible teaching church, the church leaders I had grown up under were not trained in the sciences so they were not capable of answering my questions concerning Genesis and evolution. Throughout High School I just assumed that the earth was old and evolution played some role though I did not believe man came from apes. I was a biology major taking classes in geography and geology in my first years of college and it became clear to me even then that the evolutionary philosophy and dogma I was being taught in college did not match what I was reading in the Bible. I sought answers but no one at the church I was at then had a solution and I was just as ignorant as they were. That made it difficult to witness to classmates who questioned me on why they should believe the Bible when scientists had proven it was wrong. My ignorance was detrimental to my Christian walk.

During my third year of college I started attending a different church and was shown not only that Genesis should be interpreted literally but that there was a lot of information available that proved evolution to be wrong. In fact, some of the things I was taught in college had been disproved decades earlier. It was only then that I realized that a lot of scientists do what they do and say what they say for reasons of job security, being accepted by peers, gaining fame and getting grant money. Science is supposed to be a pursuit of the truth, but being a scientist does not remove one’ sin nature. Personal bias and dishonesty in observation and reporting often skew supposed science it into the realms of falsehood.

Genesis: The Foundation

About the same time I became aware of the more serious consequences to being ignorant about the truth of Genesis. I began to notice that other professing Christians often picked and chose from the Bible what they wanted to believe. It was not authoritative in their life. That became most clear to me in my interactions with some of those in my college’s chapter of Campus Crusade. More in depth conversations with some made it clear that the Jesus they claimed to believe in was not the same Jesus I knew from the Bible.

Genesis is the foundation of Scriptures and so there can be very serious ramifications to not believing it to be true, for when the foundation crumbles the doctrines that rest upon it will also start falling. Even the abandonment of the more minor doctrines will affect the individual’s ability to walk properly with God. However, the most serious consequence would be a false hope of salvation because Jesus has been redefined. A Jesus that is not God in human flesh, or did not perform miracles, or did not die and then rise from the dead, or that lies about what happened in history, is a false Jesus that cannot forgive your sins and take you to heaven.

Genesis: Believed by Jesus, Prophets & Apostles

Related to Genesis being the foundation of the Bible is what was believed by the prophets, apostles and Jesus Himself. By definition a Christian is someone who is a follower of Christ. The term was first used by the Gentiles in Antioch to described the disciples of Jesus that made up the early church there. Luke 6:40 (NKJV) says “A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher.” By definition a Christian is someone who accepts the beliefs of Jesus and models their life after Him. Romans 8:29 even tells us that the Christian is “predestined [to become] conformed to the image of [Jesus].” What then did Jesus, the prophets and apostles believe concerning Genesis?

The Old Testament prophets were quite clear in their belief that the Lord made everything as He said in Genesis. Moses explicitly states in Exodus 20:11 “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.” Isaiah (37:16; 40:26; 40:28 42:5 44:24; 45:18 51:13,16 65:17) Jeremiah (32:17) and Nehemiah (9:6) all make specific statements about the Lord creating the heavens and earth and the Psalms are full of references to it (8:3: 33:6-9; 96:5; 102:25; 115:15; 121:2; 136; 146:6; etc.). Other writers simply reference God as the creator in more general statements.

The apostles are also explicit in citing God as the Creator. John said, “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (1:3). Paul makes many statements about God or Jesus as the Creator among them is his opening argument to the Athenian philosophers that “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands” Acts 17:24). In Colossians 1:16 Paul states, “For by Him all things were created, [both] in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created by Him and for Him.” The writer of Hebrews is even clear on the nature of the Creation stating in 11:3, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” Peter rebuked the mockers of the promise of Christ’s coming citing Creation and the flood saying, “For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and [the] earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.”

Then there are Jesus’ own statements. Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 (Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6); 2:24 (Matt. 19:5; Mark10:7-8); 5:2 (Matthew 19:4); and the fact of Noah and the Ark – Gen. 6-8 (Matthew 24:37,38; Luke 17:26,27). There were also His many references to the historical people listed in Genesis. In short, Jesus believed the Genesis account to be true as did the prophets and apostles.

Since a Christian is to believe what Jesus believed then if you profess to be a Christian you need to believe the Genesis account. It is one thing to be ignorant or confused about it, but if you reject it after being shown what Jesus, the prophets and the apostles believed, then it would be improper for you to continue to call yourself a Christian. You may be religious. You may like and value parts of the Bible. You may even regard Jesus as a great man and teacher, but you are not a true follower of Him otherwise you would believe as He did.

Rejection of Genesis

I mentioned this last week, but it bears repeating. If you reject Genesis 1, then you are rejecting the revelation of God in favor of the musings, presuppositions and schemes of men, and not just any men, but those men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, reject the evidence God has given them both internally and externally, and who profess to be wise but have become fools (Romans 1:18-23). You have accepted the mocking of ungodly men who reject the overwhelming evidence that God has judged the world by the means of a worldwide flood because they do not want to subject themselves to the fact that this God is still judge and will judge them for their sins in the future (2 Peter 3:3-7). You have made for yourself a god who is small, impotent and incapable of both communicating clearly to man what He has done and doing what He claims. If you profess to believe the God of the Bible, then why limit His ability to do what He says that He has done and tell His people about it? Again, rejection of Genesis as truth will have ramifications in your life even if done in ignorance, but willful rejection after gaining a knowledge of the truth maybe revealing a false profession.

Evolution is Not Science

Definition of Science

Evolutionist claim that it is science and based on science, but honesty demands they acknowledge that it is actually not even a science theory, but only a science model founded on a philosophy and supported by inferences. Science by definition is “knowledge acquired by careful observation, by deduction of the laws which govern changes and conditions, and by testing these deductions by experiment || a branch of study, esp. one concerned with facts, principles and methods” (Websters, 1989). A scientific theory requires the application of the scientific method of investigation which means it must be observable, testable and repeatable. Evolution is not observable, testable or repeatable. The more honest evolutionists admit this even saying that evolution was unique, unrepeatable and irreversible and therefore the experimental method could not be applied to it.

Even in micro-evolution, sometimes called speciation, no test have demonstrated evolution. Jeremy Rifkin ( Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983. p. 134 ) reports “The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutation experiments because of its fast gestation period (twelve days). X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila (fruit fly) is the equivalent of many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution. Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly.”

Evolution, like Creation, is not science nor are either scientific theories. They are both philosophical beliefs. G. W. Harper conceded this point saying, “The conflict between evolutionism and special creationism usually boils down to the conflict between rival metaphysical beliefs, and at least in this respect evolutionism and special creationism are of comparable status.” (“Alternatives to Evolutionism,” School Science Review, vol. 61 (Sept. 1979), p. 16).

Creation & Evolution Models

However, both Evolution and Creation can be used as the basis for models that can be used to correlate and explain the evidence found in the real world. The two foundation questions then are which model more accurately explains what is observed? And which model can adapt to what is actually observed? Evolution proves to be inferior to the Creation model on both accounts.

Dr. W. R. Thompson, former Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, wrote in his “Introduction,” Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin (Dutton: Everyman’s Library, 1956), p. xxii., “The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. . .” “The general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories nature presents to us, is, the inheritance of biology from the Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypotheses based on hypotheses, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion. Rifkin (ibid, p. 125) comments, “What the record shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform with Darwin’s notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as very visible, ever-present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution.”

My favorite quote on this point is from Bounoure, former director of the National Center of Scientific Research in France who said, “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” This can be illustrated as follows:

Frog + Kiss = Prince Fairy Tale

Frog + Time = Prince Evolution

The two Scientific Models of Creation & Evolution can be briefly compared as follows:

CREATION MODEL

EVOLUTION MODEL

The Universe & Solar System were suddenly created

The Universe and Solar System emerged by naturalistic processes

Life was suddenly created

Life emerged from non-life by naturalistic processes

All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions. Genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.

All present life emerged from simpler, earlier life forms, so that single-celled life evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, the amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, then man

Man and apes are distinct kinds

Man and apes have a common ancestry.

Earth’s geologic features were fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (Catastrophism)

Earth’s geologic features were shaped largely by slow, gradual processes with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (Uniformitarianism)

Inception of the Earth and of all living things may have been relatively recent

Formation of Earth and origin of life must have occurred over several billion years.

Evolution Contradicts Science

We could spend many weeks demonstrating that evolution is not based on science by showing its many contradiction to the laws of science and to scientific observation, but there is not time for that today nor is it the purpose of this sermon series. I have attached a list of resources so that you can pursue any particular area of interest at your leisure. For today I want to give you some quotes on several critical areas in which evolution contradicts science and then conclude by examining briefly the issue of time and the lack of it needed for evolution.

The Origin of Universe & Solar System is the realm of cosmologists, astro-physicists and mathematicians. There discussions are very complex, very theoretical, and very diverse. They often make claims as if they know how the universe began, but they are only speculating. Victor F Weisskopf, Professor Emeritus & Former Head, Physics, MIT (“The Origin of the Universe,” American Scientist, vol. 71 (September/October 1983), p. 474) wrote, “It should be emphasized that all discussions of the development of the cosmos are rather hypothetical, because it is very hard to make empirical observations regarding the totality of the universe, and therefore we do not know whether we have caught the real facts. No existing view of the development of the cosmos is completely satisfactory, and this includes the standard model, which leads to certain fundamental questions and problems.” Roger A Windhorst of Arizona State University said, (as quoted in Corey S. Powell, “A Matter of Timing,” Scientific American (October 1992), p. 29) “Nobody really understands how star formation proceeds; it’s really remarkable.” If this area interests you, read Starlight and Time by D. Russell Humphreys or Astronomy and Creation, by Don B. DeYoung.

Origin of life: Evolution is based on the spontaneous generation of life from non-life, something that was disproved a long time ago. Hubert P. Yockey (“A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 67 (1977), p. 396) writes, “The ‘warm little pond’ scenario was invented ad hoc to serve as a materialistic reductionist explanation of the origin of life. It is unsupported by any other evidence and it will remain ad hoc until such evidence is found…. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.” Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (Evolution from Space (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 148) comment, “The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it…. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”

The Origin of Life Forms: Evolution demands that all current forms of life evolved from earlier forms. I have already pointed out that despite repeated experiments micro-evolution, or the production of a new species has still not been observed. In addition, even in adaptations of a species to a particular environment it is through the selection of genetic information already present and never the addition of new genetic information.

But what about macro-evolution? What does the fossil record say about simpler life forms evolving into more complex ones over millions of years? Well, first of all there is no such thing as a “simple” life form for even things like bacteria are so irreducibly complex that they could not have arisen from something simpler. In other words, the complex systems within the bacteria that enable it to live cannot function except in the presence of the other complex systems. And when it comes to the fossil record, A good summary statement of its record is contained in the title of Duane Gish’s book, Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No. Even evolutionists occasionally are honest enough to concede the point. Steven M. Stanley (Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1979), p. 39) wrote, “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.” Mark Ridley who was in the Department of Zoology at Oxford University wrote, “In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation…” (“Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist, vol. 90 (June 25, 1981), p. 831) .

Geologic Features. In recent years there has been a move away from strict uniformitarian geology to start including catastrophic elements, but the idea of slow geologic processes still dominate.

Understand first of all that the geologic column which expresses the order of geologic time only exists in one place in the world, and that is books. It does not exist in nature, and it is founded upon circular reasoning as follows: 1) Assume evolution. 2) Assume rocks must show a simple to complex gradation in any fossils contained in them. 3) Arrange the strata on a chart so the fossils reflect your assumption. 4) Explain away any contradictions to the assumed order. 5) Accept dating methods and data that agree with the assumed order and reject those that do not. 6) Use these as evidence for Geologic time table and correct strata succession. 7) Proclaim evolution to be true. The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. Tom S. Kemp, past Curator, University Museum, Oxford University admits this when he says, “In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be ‘wrong.’ A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?” (“A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record,” New Scientist, vol. 108 (December 5, 1985), pp. 66-67).

When it comes to the geologic column itself, the comments of E. M. Spieker, are very revealing. “Does our time-scale then partake of natural law? No…. “I wonder how many of us realize that the time scale was frozen in essentially its present form by 1840? . . . And in many parts of the world, notably India and South America, it [the geologic time scale] does not fit. But even there it is applied! The followers of the founding fathers went forth across the earth and in Procrustean fashion made it fit the sections they found, even in places where the actual evidence literally proclaimed denial” (“Mountain-Building Chronology and Nature of Geologic Time Scale,” Bulletin, American Association of Petroleum Geologists (August 1956), pp. 1769-1815).

The Second Law of Thermodynamics governs the trend in nature for matter and energy to go from order to disorder, from structure to randomness. This is stated in physics as “the entropy of the universe never decreases; during any process, the entropy either remains constant or else increases.” Even where life may decrease entropy in a localized area, there is still a net increase for the universe. Evolution requires the exact opposite of this so they are always looking for a loophole to the law. Despite the claims, there are no loopholes. Harold F. Blum writes, “No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the nonliving world” (Time’s Arrow and Evolution (Princeton University Press, 1968), p. 119). , Frank A. Greco states, “But an answer can readily be given to the question ‘Has the second law of thermodynamics been circumvented?’ Not yet” (“On the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” American Laboratory (October 1982), pp. 80-88).

An Old Earth – Not Enough Time. There is much more that could be pointed out from a lot of other areas of study in which evolution contradicts science, but I will conclude this morning with its fallacy of an old earth.

You will notice the candle burning. If I asked you how long the candle has burning you could try to determine the answer by A) measuring the current rate of combustion, B) determine the composition of the candle (mother element), C) determine what products are given off by the burning of the candle (daughter elements), D) measure the amount of the daughter elements in the room, E) calculate the time it took for enough of the wax to burn to produce the measured daughter elements.

However, in doing this you would also have to assume the following: 1) The candle has burned at a constant rate. 2) The candle has a uniform composition. 3) A closed system – i.e. no daughter elements have escaped and none have come in from a candle burning somewhere else. 4) The original mother / daughter ratio in the system is known.

Or you could ask the person who lit it when they did so.

The problem with determining the age of the earth is that so many scientists refuse to believe what the Creator has said so they come up with various geochronometers by which they seek to determine the age of some earth feature for themselves. They then fail to take into account the assumptions upon which their calculations are based resulting in conclusions that are tenuous at best and usually just plain false. This is true even when it comes to radiometric dating for it is now known that radioactive decay rates can vary, mother / daughter elements can leach, and the original mother/daughter ratios are unknown. That is why the age of rocks from the lava dome in Mt. St. Helens, which formed in 1986, were calculated to be from 350,000 to 2.6 million years old. The same thing has occurred for Hawaiian lava flows in which the actual day and year of the flows are known.

While the actual age of the earth cannot be reliably calculated by these methods, they can be used to put an upper limit upon the possibilities. To go back to the candle illustration, it could be determined the minimum burn rate of the candle and the maximum amount of wax that could have been physically present and then the calculations would show the maximum amount of time the candle could have been burning. The same thing can be done for the earth.

There many methods by which this can be done, but the best ones will be characterized by having either a constant rate or a known functional variation and be part of either a closed system or know the external effects if it is in an open system. A few of these are listed below. Again, these are not stating how old the earth is but setting physical limits to how old the earth could be.

Rotation of Spiral galaxies < 2 million years

Observation of the decay of long-period comets < 1 million years

Observation of the decay of short-period comets < 10,000 years

Influx of materials into the Sun <83,000 years

Accumulation of dust on the moon <200,000 years

Decay of Earth’s rotational speed <500,000 years

Efflux of Helium into the atmosphere <175,000 years

Decay of Earth’s Magnetic field <10,000 years

Oil gushers <11,000 years

Frederic B Jueneman (“Secular Catastrophism,” Industrial Research and Development (June 1982), p. 21), gives us a nice summary about what “science” tells us about the age of the earth. “The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man. “The mechanism for resetting such nuclear clocks is not clear, but knowledge has never really stood in our way in the quest for ignorance. Meanwhile, such prehistoric ‘creatures’ as Nessie from Loch Ness or Champ from Lake Champlain, as well as others, may not be avatars at all, but survivors from the last catastrophe. “Even as we.”

Yes, even as we who are descendants from Noah & his family.

Evolution is no more scientific that Creation, and actually less so since it is less able to explain and adapt itself to the actual evidence from the real world around us. It is tragic that so many Christians foolishly yield greater authority to it than to what God has revealed to us in the Scriptures. Don’t be one of them, for there are consequences to not believing Genesis, some of which can be very serious.

What is the nature of your God? Is he a small god bound by the ideas of man or is He the sovereign Creator who does as He says?

“knowledge acquired by careful _______________, by deduction of the laws which govern changes and conditions, and by ___________ these deductions by experiment || a branch of study, esp. one concerned with facts, principles and methods” (Websters, 1989)

Creation & Evolution Models

“The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a __________________ in scientific integrity. . .”

CREATION MODEL

EVOLUTION MODEL

The Universe & Solar System were ____________________

The Universe and Solar System emerged by __________________

Life was __________________

Life emerged from_____________ by naturalistic processes

All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions. Genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.

All present life emerged from simpler, earlier life forms, so that single-celled life evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, the amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, then man

Man and apes are ______________

Man and apes have a common ancestry.

Earth’s geologic features were fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (Catastrophism)

Earth’s geologic features were shaped largely by slow, gradual processes with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (Uniformitarianism)

Inception of the Earth and of all living things may have been ____________________________________________________

Formation of Earth and origin of life must have occurred _____________________________________________

Evolution Contradicts Science

The Origin of Universe & Solar System

“It should be emphasized that all discussions of the development of the cosmos are rather______________,

The ‘warm little pond’ scenario was _________________________ to serve as a materialistic reductionist explanation of the origin of life.

There was no _______________________, neither on this planet nor on any other

The Origin of Life Forms

there is no such thing as a ______________ life form

“The known fossil record ________________ to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition . . .

Geologic Features

A_______________ argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory.Well, it would, wouldn’t it?

“Does our time-scale then partake of natural law? ______________

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

“the entropy of the universe never ___________________; during any process, the entropy either remains constant or else ________________.”

‘Has the second law of thermodynamics been circumvented?’ __________________

Not Enough Time

Observation of the decay of short-period comets < ____________ years

Decay of Earth’s rotational speed <____________ years

Decay of Earth’s Magnetic field <____________ years

Conclusions

My God is _______________________________________KIDS CORNER

Parents, you are responsible to apply God’s Word to your children’s lives. Here is some help.

Young Children – draw a picture about something you hear during the sermon. Explain your picture(s) to your parents at lunch. Older Children – Do one or more of the following: 1) Write down all the verses mentioned in the sermon and look them up later. 2) Count how many times “evolution “is mentioned in the sermon. Talk with your parents why evolution is not true.

THINK ABOUT IT!

Questions to consider in discussing the sermon with others. Why can’t Genesis 1 be made compatible with evolution? What are some of the differences between them that cannot be reconciled? Can a person be a Christian without believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis? Why or why not? What consequences could there be for someone that does not believe Genesis? What did the prophets believe about Genesis? The Apostles? Jesus? What is a Christian? What should be the relationship between a Christian’s belief and Jesus’ belief? What are some of the possible consequences for a person that knows what Jesus believes but still rejects Genesis? Define science. What is necessary for something to qualify as a scientific theory? Does evolution fit the definition for science or requirements to be a theory? Why or why not? Briefly compare the models of Creation and Evolution. Evolution contradicts the evidence found in nature and what has been demonstrated in a multiplicity of scientific fields. Give one example of a contradiction in each of the following areas: The origin of the Universe & Solar System; The origin of life; The origin of various life forms; The “Geologic Column”; Geologic features; The Second Law of Thermodynamics; The laws of probability; the length of time of the existence of the universe, solar system and earth. What is a geo-chronometer? How can they be used to set a limit on the age of the earth? What are some of the geo-chronometers that limit the earth to < 2 million years? <200,000 years? < 20,000 year? Can the God you serve do what the God of the Bible says He has done? Will He fulfill His promises? Why or why not?